Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinner and Grammerians RFC


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. v/r - TP 14:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pinner and Grammerians RFC

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability. EBE!@# talkContribs 10:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: no significant sources that are independent of the team. Any sources that are independent are minor references that couldn't prove notability. --Mrmatiko (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Delete as WP:COPYVIO of . noq (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: According to the talk page permission for something is granted through OTRS. Without OTRS access I can't verify that the page Noq points out is the text for which permission was given, though the talk page history indicates that it might be. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ah I missed that. However there are still no obvious sources that I can find, no claims to WP:notability and it is WP:original research. noq (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The team participates in the Herts/Middlesex 2 league (Once on that link, click League Table and the team will appear in the table). This is a regional club league in the London & South-East division of England that is organized by the RFU. Regarding content. That which appears to be copyvio can and should be deleted, but the page itself should stand. --Bob247 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. These guys may be grammarians, but the article author certainly isn't a speller. If this is kept it needs to be moved to the correct title, and in the meantime here are some more useful searches than the ones linked in the nomination: . Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment. If you'll excuse my contributing some local knowledge (but with no knowledge of this club) I would add that this team's home ground is a municipal public park, which may have some bearing on notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the fact that they play at a municipal public park has a bearing on notability? Perthshire RFC is a notable club in Scotland that also plays at a municipal park. To the right is a photo of their pitch during the summer. you can make out the touchline in the bottom right corner. --Bob247 (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that existence is notable? The content is a copy from the website - albeit one that has been donated this does indicate a WP:conflict of interest and WP:original research. I have not seen anything that show notability in the Wikipedia sense. It is a small local club with no claim to any historical significance - This is an article that is unlikely to become anything other than an extension of the clubs own website. noq (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that a club that has been in existence for ~80 years and participates in an RFU sanctioned league and that has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is not notable? After signing in to LexisNexis, I have found significant coverage in multiple news sources. These include the Enfield Independent (November 25, 2010), the Cambridge Evening News (November 2, 2010), the Harrow Times (December 31, 2008), the Hertfordshire Mercury (March 30, 2007), The Times (March 8, 1997), The Observer (January 21, 1996), The Herald (Glasgow) (January 17, 1996) and The Independent (London) (January 16, 1996). I cannot post direct links to these articles as found using the the LexisNexis system as they won't work. However, looking at the archives of just one of the newspapers listed above I have found this and this and there is always the five listings here. --Bob247 (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In general match reports in the local press are not considered the type of significant coverage required to satisfy the general notability guideline. When my son played association football for youth teams from the age of seven onwards match reports (usually written by the team coach, but without acknowledgement) were carried by the Harrow Observer and the Harrow Times, but that doesn't make those teams notable. I don't have access to LexisNexis, so could you please give us an idea of what coverage there is of this club in the national press articles from 1996 and 1997? Our article doesn't mention any significant events from this period, and I'm rather intrigued as to why a Scottish national newspaper would have significant coverage of a local rugby club from the London suburbs. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've tracked down the article in The Herald. How on earth can you claim that it contains significant coverage of this club? It doesn't have any coverage whatsoever, let alone significant coverage. As the articles in The Independent and The Observer are dated within a few days of that one I strongly suspect that they are either syndicated copies of the same article or similar reports quoting the club secretary about an issue unrelated to the club itself. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue discussed in the observer is that of the RFU organisation. The article also states the involvement of the secretary of Pinner and Grammarians, who would not have been involved had it not been for his involvement in the club. The byline in the he Times September 23, 1998 talks of the clubs inability to win a game in the Tetley's Bitter Vase. Yes, the club has had no feature length articles in major news magazines, but I posit that 80% of the clubs listed in Wikipedia are in the same situtaion. If this article is deleted, then most of the articles describing rugby union clubs should be deleted for the same reasons. In this vain we will have no coverage of any clubs outside of the top tiers of rugby union. If that is the consensus, then sobeit. I will leave a note on WP:RU (which should have been done by the nominator through simple courtesy) for members of that project to have input to this potential precedent. --Bob247 (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Plenty of noteworthy rugby teams play in public parks/shared grounds. I can think of several in Edinburgh which do. Unlike soccer, we don't tend to have massive stands, and millionaire players are thin on the ground too.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No coverage of this club has been found apart from a handful of match reports in local newspapers. The claim made above of significant coverage being found via LexisNexis is a clear case of misrepresentation, so can't be accepted as evidence of such coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a member club of the RFU, has a long history within rugby, plays in the official leagues and has produced a member of its club into the role of the president of the RFU. I believe that there shouldn't really be an issue any longer of copyvio after a rewrite and cites have been added where ever it was possible. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is in a good stste now and well worth keeping. The fact that a club member becam president of the RFU makes it pretty notable. Calistemon (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - old club, and has provided president of the RFU. Anyone who thinks Google is a reputable academic source needs their head examined. (If people want sources they should start looking OFFLINE as well, e.g. in rugby almanacs etc.)--MacRusgail (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.